Re-defining the Candy Hierarchy (Halloween Experiment Debriefing #3)

The data presented below were first published after Halloween in 2006, here at The World's Fair. We were fortunate after that publication to receive further (non-anonymous) peer review and thus we re-present below the hierarchy with amendments and adjustments, but no retractions, this time just ahead of Halloween and Ghost season.

For example, one reviewer, Prof. Turcano, rightly observed that Smarties "are clearly an index candy for the Middle Crunchy Tart Layer," and that addition was made. Another reviewer, Dr. Maywa, noted that "anonymous brown globs that come in black and orange wrappers" were most definitely indicative of the "how dare they call this a candy" layer. I think some of Charles Lyell's earlier work indicated much the same, but then the Royal Society got all up in the mix and it fell out again. (There's a uniformitarian for you, right?)

To repeat our earlier claims to the report: Although there were some intra-family disputes about what belongs where, we did derive a basic candy hierarchy, and I do think it is more or less sound. This taxonomy is based on years of research and debate, on thorough testing and re-testing, on statistical comparison and quality measurement, on focus group testing, and on a series of FTIR scans that reveal various hydrocarbon peaks and whatnot.

It's sound science.

And so to you the 2007 Candy Hierarchy, with uncertainties acknowledged:

*These indicate the intra-family disputes. For example, I would keep Kit-Kat where it is, while other unnamed members of the family demand that it be given Top Tier Classification. That same other unnamed member of the family would not put Tootsie Rolls as a top-tier get, though I would've. Shockingly, there was no unanimous decision on the placement of Candy Corn, which as of 2006 remained unclassified, but as of 2007 has been tentatively placed in the Upper Chewy/Upper Devonian.

**Remains an outlier, since it is in no way "chewy." Further studies have not resolved this inconsistency.

***The literature shows that these are perhaps "an abomination too evil to distribute to the young nowadays."

**** Prior studies show that "the whoppers that never properly whopped and are chewy, however, should always be a top tier item."

More like this

Although there were some intra-family disputes about what belongs where, we did derive a basic candy hierachy, and I do think it is basically sound. This taxonomy is based on years of research and debate, on thorough testing and re-testing, on statistical comparison and quality measurement, on…

The data presented below were first published after Halloween in 2006, here at The World's Fair. After further (non-anonymous) peer review, we pushed into the second phase of the research in 2007, as published here. We are proud to acknowledge that these earlier efforts--pilot studies, both--led…

Moving along (see here), the order of quality for Halloween candy has been a source of constant conversation for years in my family. Since my kids became full-on trick-or-treaters a few years ago, it seemed necessary to get down to the science of it. That led to the first hierarchy, in 2006,…

Reposted from Halloween 2006.
Since Ben shared his family's taxonomy of candy types, and it's Friday, after all, I thought I'd share some of things that we do with candy around our house and describe some fun things that you can do with candy at home.
Materials and methods. First, you need some…

Outstanding work. However, I must object to this:

**** Prior studies show that "the whoppers that never properly whopped and are chewy, however, should always be a top tier item."

Anonymous comments received during peer review do not constitute "studies." Plus, un-whopped whoppers are nasty.

I would point out that Payday bars are definitely not chocolate. However, IMHO, they definitely belong in the second tier. Perhaps their presence there also points to the reason for the Jolly Ranchers (if a good flavor) in the third tier. Yes, they are outliers, but plainly demonstrate the survival of the fittest.

I'm also somewhat disturbed by the total absence of Baby Ruth, which would appear to be the earliest surviving example of the evolutionary transition from the crunchy/chewy to the the dominant chocolate realm.

Is further analysis possible to indicate at what point further exposure to a Top Tier candy reduces that candy to a lower tier? Likewise, at what point does exposure (over-exposure, really) to a candy at one tier elevate a lower tier example to a higher tier, and does such an elevation require a marked difference between texture, consistency, etc., of the example candies?

We always make sure to have one bag of candy with no chocolate and one bag of candy with no nuts. There's nothing worse than being a little kid at Halloween and not being able to eat the candy you collect because it could literally kill you.

Perhaps this means there is a separate ecosystem of candy, one in which the tiers are radically changed due to a different environment. In this case, candy like Starburst or Jolly Ranchers would be top tier.

Other rankings would be dependent on local cultural whims. As a kid, Black Jack gum was the cool gum.

As a child, one of my main criteria for candy was its time value, i.e. how many minutes of happiness per mass or volume of candy. Milk duds and those cow things (black cows? chocolate carmel on a stick?) were the big winners.

Tootsie roll pops would represent a transitional form between tiers 2 and 3, being essentially a tootsie roll wrapped in a good-flavored Jolly Rancher. Although now that I think about it, technically they are an example of endosymbiosis.

I'm not sure I understand the whole heirarchy system. What criteria are used to determine the tier to which a particular candy belongs? The top two tiers are both listed as being exlusively chocolate, but outside of that, what differentiates the two?
Also, do the tiers represent an inherent value in the candy or is it strictly categorical? If the top tiers are supposed to be "better" candy than the bottom tiers I am going to have to disagree and point out that they are different types of candy altogether.
Comparing chocolate candies to the friuty-flavored/sour candies is comparing apples to oranges. Both have their own qualities that make them good (or bad) candies and should be treated accordingly.

All that aside, where do dark chocolate m&ms fit in? Are they first-tier with the other m&ms or second-tier with dark chocolate?

Seriously? This is cool. And i mostly agree with it. But somehow you forgot to include Mars. Or don't you have that in the US? It seems equal to twix, snickers and bounty. Which is missing too, but since i don't like those I don't care.

After dinner peppermints go straight to the bottom. Anyone ever victimized by that for Halloween? I was a few times.

Any differentiation between dark chocolates and regular milk chocolate?

How about candy Buttons/Dots (not to be confused with those gummy Dots) I mean, you eat them and end up with an almost equal amount of paper in your mouth -- that's not candy, that's punishment. Straight to the bottom with those.

And what exactly are those "anonymous brown globs that come in black and orange wrappers"? Is that taffy?

Donate

ScienceBlogs is where scientists communicate directly with the public. We are part of Science 2.0, a science education nonprofit operating under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Please make a tax-deductible donation if you value independent science communication, collaboration, participation, and open access.

You can also shop using Amazon Smile and though you pay nothing more we get a tiny something.

More by this author

Me again. I once put up a post on the problems with trusting the safety of energy producing systems. The post was not well received; I see as I re-read the comments that I was particularly irritable about it. But I find the point I was trying to make way back when captured better in the…

"The world is full of light and life, and the true crime is not to be interested in it." A.S. Byatt
"What seems a detour has a way of becoming, in time, a direct route." Richard Powers
I had more fun doing this series than anything else in the past 3+ years here at the Fair. It was a unique…

(Ten Best of the Decade from Half of the World's Fair)
This series began with the kindness of a friend who agreed to let me ask him about his book about Barry Commoner, science, and modern environmentalism. It then spawned a series of 17 interviews with authors of books in science studies,…

These never got formalized into an official series (not to demystify it too much, but that formalization process requires mostly that Dave make an icon to put on the sidebar). Nevertheless, they ended up as an eight-part set of posts about landscape art of various types. I'll put a representative…

This one was immense. It was also a dual effort (and not by "one of the guys" at the blog). Like the Puzzle Fantastica, this one is very difficult to re-post in its entirety. Luckily, Dave made a great graphic with links embedded to each game. I'll reprint the Press Center, then, which includes…

More reads

"[The black hole] teaches us that space can be crumpled like a piece of paper into an infinitesimal dot, that time can be extinguished like a blown-out flame, and that the laws of physics that we regard as 'sacred,' as immutable, are anything but."
-John A. Wheeler
To an astronomer on any other world, the most important object in our Solar System wouldn't be the Earth, but rather our Sun. Just…

Vertical agitation meets shame in Fish2Fork, a new seafood conservation effort led by Charles Clover (author of End of the Line), which seeks to highlight which restaurants are best and worst when it comes to the seafood they sell. The focus on restaurants is a great move and I particularly like how Fish2Fork highlights the 'top 10' and 'bottom 10' restaurants.
As a quibble, I wish the "We say…

“Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere.” -Carl Sagan
For thousands of years, humanity has looked up at the night sky and wondered at what might be out there. For the first time in all of our history, we not only have the answers to what's present in the Universe, we not only know the nature of most objects we see (and infer), but we even have…